Damn, I Was Good

Two senators suggest a change in computer security, as a result of Wikileaks:

The senators urged a transition to a "role-based" system to access secure information. "Instead of making all information available to everyone who has access to classified systems, a role-based system makes information available based on individuals' positions and the topics for which they are responsible." In this system, they explain, an embassy's diplomatic cables would be available only to military officials deployed in that country or who work on related issues -- not to everyone with a security clearance at the Defense Department.

 My self-congratulation relates to a proposal in the mid-90's, suggesting what we needed for Info-share was security based on roles.  Unfortunately, that idea, as well as others, never took root in the bureaucratic soil. There's something in the Bible about seed falling on rocky ground and it's the same way for ideas.  You need the soil, the tiller of the soil, and the idea to come together. Else all you have is might-have-beens, close relatives of woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Parenting--Tiger Moms and Pushy Families

The "tiger mom", the Yale law prof who talks about pushing her two daughters to perfection by behaving as a "Chinese mother" is getting lots of attention.  I'm also reading Condolezza Rice's memoir, which describes how her parents pushed her and pushed her (it's interesting, not great, but interesting).  This ties into a Tyler Cowen post on a study which indicates that environment makes the most difference for people in less fortunate conditions while genes make more difference in the more fortunate conditions.  (Think of this example: if food is scarce, you don't get many tall basketball players; if food becomes plentiful, genes for height can be fully expressed.  Stole that from a book I read which I'm too lazy to look up.)

Over my lifetime parents have invested more and more effort into rearing their children and giving them advantages.  I think that's a reflection of the good times we enjoy.  In the 19th century, a good parent was a good provider or a good homemaker.  Do those things well and the environment would take care of your kids.  Now with most Americans middle class or better, the competition is stiffer.  But because less is under the parents' control, there's more premium on the margins.  It's rather like athletes in track.  When I was growing up, the times for the mile were being lowered slowly.  Then came Bannister and Landy and the breaking of the 4-minute barrier and then fell quickly.  Now it takes more and more effort and training to eke out any world record in either the mile or 1500.

Some Statistics on Threats

I posted yesterday wishing that the Obama administration would post statistics on threats.  Today the Post has a piece on threats to Social Security Administration's personnel. The number of threats has gone from 897 in 2007 FY to 2,336 in 2010FY. The administrative judges, who deliver decisions on eligibility, such as eligibility for disability benefits, feel especially insecure.


This Politico article reports on statistics of threats to Congresspeople, while this was yesterday's Post piece.

Seems to me there's a valid argument possible that political rhetoric and mudracking media stir antagonism to the establishment, which should show up pretty directly in the threat and assault statistics.  Of course, the big question is what other factors could be involved?  For example, in the case of SSA, people who are out of work due to the Great Bush Recession could be expressing, not political anger, but economic frustration.  That's why we need a long term project to gather and display such statistics.

A Funny Sentence

At least for those who remember when John Cage was a controversial composer.  From Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution, discussing an analysis of what men find attractive in women:

. Instead, it just so happens, that the thing that some people love is the very thing that repels others. We see the same phenomena in art, some people love John Cage, other people would rather listen to nothing at all. ;)

Saddest Funniest Sentence of the Day

From an Ezra Klein discussion of suggested ways for Congresspeople to be more secure in their meetings with the public: [I've bolded the sentence.]

But will congressional aides make for good bodyguards, even if they get "a bit of training?" I doubt it. Because field organizers actually don't know how to find the one nut who will pull a gun every few decades, they'll start throwing out lots of people who seem a little off. Better than safe than shot at. But if you've ever been to a community meeting, "seems a little off" pretty much describes the whole room. And people who "seem a little off" should have access to their member of Congress, too.

I might add I like Klein's posts on the Arizona shootings.

Blast from the Past: "Labor in Vain Road"

In Ipswich, MA.  (Google for it.) Ipswich takes pride in its 17th century houses, the most of any site on the east coast.

Open Government and Political Violence

Lots of discussion in the wake of the Arizona shooting. What I've not seen is a whole lot of facts about political violence.  The closest I've seen is an assertion that threats against the President have increased since Obama assumed office.  Maybe the Obama administration should apply a little open government: put a running total of threats and assaults against the President, justices, Congresspeople, and federal employees on its data.gov.  It'd take a while to build up a baseline, but it'd give a reasonable basis for some discussions.

Budgetary Incoherence on the Right

Reihan Salam at The Agenda comments on a piece elsewhere:

." But I did appreciate the opening section on how to rethink support for farmers:

Canada has experimented with a program that provides government matching funds for farmers' deposits into savings accounts that help them buffer their incomes against the ups and downs of farm prices. Such a program in the U.S. could achieve the objective of helping family farmers survive while enabling policy makers to withdraw billions of subsidies to big agriculture.
These changes, plus closing the U.S. Agriculture Department's Foreign Agricultural Service, would save about $19.5 billion. Not a bad start."

This seems incoherent to me.  The farm programs these days aren't the $19 billion people were using in the early 2000's, but more like $12 billion. And if you're matching farmers' deposits (like a 401 K setup), you can't claim to cut all that money.  And the FAS is not a high dollar service.  (Probably around $200 million.) Maybe they got confused between FSA and FAS?  As I say: incoherence on the right.  (Not that the left is always right when they're discussing agriculture.)

Was Al Gore Wrong in Reinventing Government?

One of the theories of the 1990's was "flatter is better".  Reduce the number of supervisors and creativity will blossom and efficiency with flourish and good things will result.  Al Gore adopted that theory as part of his "Reinventing Government" (it may have been part of "business process reengineering" as well, but I'm too lazy to check).  So agencies were supposed to reorganize to cut management layers.  My understanding of FSA's efforts was that it was mostly a paper exercise; first-level supervisors lost their personnel responsibilities but retained their day-to-day operational responsibilities; units formerly called "sections" became "work groups", branches became "sections", etc. 

Of course, over the past 15 years, that particular reform may have gone by the wayside.  Certainly the proliferation of titles at the upper levels of FSA and USDA seems to have continued.

Anyhow, Steven Kelman was involved with Gore, mostly on procurement reform as I remember.  But now he's got a post in Federal Computer Week in which he seems to say Gore may have been wrong: "There was a period, especially in the 1990s, when the conventional wisdom was that first-line supervisors accomplished little. By contrast, Gittell’s finding is that those supervisors help broker communication across group boundaries."

The Melting Pot and Tossed Salad

When I was young, the "melting pot" was the dominant metaphor for America vis a vis immigration.  Of course, that was during the period between 1923 or so and 1965 when immigration was basically restricted to Western Europe.  (Mexicans were "wetbacks" or migrant workers, not immigrants we recognized.)  The idea I took away was like melting your crayons all together, which I'd done once or twice. 

In college a young government professor named Theodore Lowi, who later became prominent in the political science field, suggested maybe the better metaphor was "tossed salad".  Rather than the different nationalitiies all melting together and forming a new American nationality, each one would maintain some of their identity.  That would logically lead to the "diversity" argument; the theory that America prospers by recognizing and maintaining differences.

The above is just background.  In recent years I've grown interested in genealogy.  Some of my paternal ancestors came to America in the 1720's or so; others came in the 1820's.  What seems to be the case is they were almost entirely Scots-Irish, Covenanters. The exception is a Quaker lineage.  And, through geographic  concentration and cultural networks (the Presbyterian church), my ancestors seem to have kept together, marrying within the general Scots-Irish community, for about 200 years of life in America. Even in my father's generation his brother continued the pattern.

Because my mother's ancestors were Germans emigrating in the last half of the 19th century the picture is not as distinct, but my maternal grandparents married within the German community.

So, at least based on my limited sample, it's true enough the "melting pot" metaphor is misleading.  Yes, we eventually melt together but it takes a long time.  And even the melting of Scots-Irish and German is not the merging of polar opposites.  Lutherans and Calvinists have different theologies, but they aren't polar opposites.